Dewi wrote:I bet you would not have been so annoyed and would have gladly moved with no arguments if the guy at reception had simply explained the reasons first of all and had been up front with you about the double booking. By not telling you the truth in the first place just makes you more annoyed.
Simple customer care policies could have prevented this from spoiling your time there.
Dewi,
Best of all it was not a double booking but a donor refusing to move into the available unit next to his donor unit due to a mix up. We arrived a day before him and therefore had the right to stay on in the same unit we first booked in, but I agree a good explanaition would have prevented it all.
The hospitality services manager left on Friday afternoon leaving the two receptionist to sort this out with a donor well known to them who was visiting this camp yearly since the early 90's. I don't think it was the first time this problem occured, therefor the cover up.
Sprocky,
Can't wait for the info. Most of the information I got was from the donor himself. In 1995 Getaway published one of the first article in a magazine on Biyamiti. Below is a quote from the journo:
Cottage number nine where I stayed faces the Biyamiti River but is set further back from the bank than the rest.
“I’m sorry we could not arrange a cottage with a better view,” apologised Gwen. I didn’t mind too much but wondered why there had not been a better attempt to blend them into their natural surroundings (the huts are quite close together and in a formal line).The 15 cottages sleep either four or five people each and the larger ones have a furnished patio with a screen door leading to a narrow kitchen, two bedrooms (both with overhead fans and one en suite) and a separate toilet and shower.
The smaller one-bedroomed cottages have a veranda-cum-kitchen linked by a large glass door to a living room which has cane furniture and two extra beds. The living area, with its bright sunny atmosphere and excellent outdoor flow, is a superb feature that is absent from the larger cottages, which I found somewhat dark and dismal.
“What’s that noise,” I asked Gwen as a shudder broke the silence on the stoep. “The fridge”, she replied. “It runs only a couple of hours a day.” It did not make another sound for the rest of the day or night and it (along with the gas-operated geyser and oven) worked extremely well throughout my stay. The camp has environmentally friendly solar energy which provides enough power for lights but not for hair dryers, razors or air conditioning.
“I hope the National Parks Board accountants in bungalows one, two and three don’t disturb you,” said Gwen as she departed. They didn’t, but I was a bit alarmed to learn that out of 15 huts at least four were occupied by parks board employees, one by a travel journalist (myself) and the rest by either their donor-owners or their friends. No wonder the general public battles to make a booking. That’s, of course, assuming they can afford it.
http://magazine.getaway.co.za/archive/r ... veld-camp/
dup,
My feeling as well. The camp paid it self off within 2 years based on 70 % occupation. Why are these philantropic "donors" still want to claim there share in the camp if they have donated money and claimed back from SARS. The public is currently paying R68 000 for the same number of days the donor has rights to. Now one just wonder who are the donors and the time/share for life owners. Normal time share means you still pay a levy per month (easily R3000 for 6 weeks). If thats the case no problem, but why can't I get my unit as well and be able to book 12 months in advance
Lisbeth,
Besides camping I will also not stay in the park any more. SO wanted to spoil me for my birthday because she left me for a week in September. In the end there was no celabration and we nearly had to call the emergency number because after the shock of finding our chalet occupied she started to get sever stomach pains.
Just wonder when these perks "donors" are receiving will stop.
Trying to hide those innocent facts make me thing that there are many more hidden which are less innocent.
Shocked but not surprised!!! Now we are sitting with a number of who knows how many mini share holders that demands can change any day. It's just absurd!!!!!! IMHO was just another sneaky way of Sanparks to let the funding of these camps came out of the public's pocket! I smell the C letter word again...................................... 
